*
If Jamal Khashoggi was butchered at the orders of Mohammed bin Salman, then the
Saudis are not a reliable ally.

*
The Saudis are a reliable ally.

*
The MAGAbomber is a Trumpist.

*
If the MAGAbomber is a Trumpist, then the MAGAbombs are not a false flag.

*
The MAGAbombs are a false flag.

Choose
two! Or in other words: any two imply the negation of the third. Which to deny?

The
curious thing is, the R party tries to have all three parts of each trilemma!
They reflexively defend part 3 as a predetermined conclusion; they spasmotically
try to deny another part of the trilemma (usually part 1, sometimes 2); but
normalcy prevails. This means defying the law of modus ponens: From A, and A
implies B, derive B. Modus ponens is also known as “consequence”: so the R
party literally denies consequence. Therefore I call the R’s the Party of
Personal Irresponsibility.

Shall
we call this innovation “triple-think”?

I
propose that triple-think is the mechanics of crime-stop. Trilemmas create the
protective stupidity that prevents logical deductions against Big Brother.

But
every trilemma is three syllogisms in disguise; for from any two statements in
a trilemma, one may deduce the negation of the third. So crime-stop is a
bulwark for Big Brother; but it is also an open invitation to thought crime.